Here Comes Another ‘Crime Wave’

Will any candidate have the fortitude to link America's crimes abroad with crime at home?

By

March 15, 2007

Ominously timed for Campaign 2008 we’ve got a hike in certain stats for violent crime. So we can look forward to Steve Squarejaw-type commitments to being tough on crime, particularly from Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and–it’s surely safe to assume–Hillary Clinton. The Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington-based law-enforcement think tank whose board consists of seven police chiefs, including William Bratton of the LAPD and John Timoney of Miami, has just put out a report stridently titled Violent Crime in America: 24 Months of Alarming Trends. This follows the alarums of the forum’s October 2006 bulletin, which featured Bratton predicting “a gathering storm” of violent crimes.

Of the fifty-six police departments voluntarily sending 2006 figures to the forum–New York City was not among them–forty reported increases in homicide and robbery. The forum says that between 2004 and 2006 homicide increased 10.2 percent, robbery 12.3 percent, aggravated assault 3.1 percent, aggravated assault with a firearm 10 percent.

Of course, crime stats are exceeded in flim-flammery only by economic forecasts. Astrology is a far more reliable analytic tool, as Ron and Nancy Reagan learned under the guidance of Mistress Quigley. Entrail-reading is even better. But if the animal rights crowd raises a ruckus about cutting open a beast of the field to look at its liver, a qualified ooscopist can do a decent job by inspecting the yolk of an uncooked egg.

The forum’s fearful trumpetings would diminish sharply if its statistics addressed crime rates rather than merely numbers of crimes. The population of the United States is rising by about 1 percent per year. As columnist John Lott pointed out, if the police chiefs had measured the violent crime rate, “it would have been hard to argue that violent crime is increasing because while the rate did go up slightly in 2005, it had fallen every single previous year since 1991. How can they claim that violent crime is out of control when it had fallen for thirteen straight years before rising by 1.3 percent for just one year?”

There are wide divergences in the performance of the cities reporting to the forum. Murderers in Charleston worked away diligently and managed to hike their total from eleven victims in 2005 to twenty-three in 2006, a headline-making rise of 109 percent. By contrast, the murderers of Atlanta could only manage 107 in 2006, up from a disappointing eighty-nine in 2005, but down from 112 in 2004. In Chicago aggravated assaults fell for two straight years, from 18,820 in 2004 to 17,438 in 2006, a drop of 7.3 percent.

Debatable in many of its aspects, such a rise in crimes as there has been started in 2004, ending the long decline during the 1990s that lasted through the turn of the millennium. Between 1992 and 2001 the FBI’s core crime stats went down 17.9 percent. This was largely achieved by the expedient of locking up or putting on parole or probation about 3 percent of the population. At the end of 2005, 7 million people–one in every thirty-two American adults–were behind bars or on probation or parole. The United States had 5 percent of the world’s people and 25 percent of the world’s prisoners.

Elliott Currie, who teaches criminology at UC, Irvine, and wrote the excellent Crime and Punishment in America, tells my Nation colleague Wes Enzinna that in his opinion the right-wing exaggerates how much crime has declined since the early 1990s as a result of “law and order” efforts. One major factor was the crack and gun boom, a self-limiting phenomenon that could last only so long, and cause so much crime, before it largely destroyed those involved.

Currie also stresses that nothing was done to abate crime on a long-term, constructive basis. People were thrown into prison, while the root causes–ravaged communities, abandoned and demonized youth–were exacerbated. Any recent crime rise can be largely explained as part of a cycle. People are now getting out of prison to find no services or jobs, returning to communities that are even worse off than before. So many of them commit crimes again. Methamphetamine is a popular salve amid these crises.

A year before the 2004 violent crime uptick, the Bush regime thrust the country into an illegal war contrived by lies, unleashing criminal violence in Iraq, with the Afghanistan attack as prelude. The long-term effects of wars upon crime at home have been studied in some detail. One in eight returning soldiers, the US Army estimates, suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder. Many of these soldiers become powder kegs, prone to alcohol or drug addiction, and to violence.

On February 22, Sgt. Paul Cortez, 24, was sentenced to 100 years in prison for his part in the gang rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, and the killing of her family last year. (He will be eligible for parole in ten years under the terms of his plea agreement.)

Tears, so the AP report told us, “rolled down Cortez’s face as he apologized for the rape and murders. He said he could not explain why he took part. ‘I still don’t have an answer,’ Cortez told the judge. ‘I don’t know why. I wish I hadn’t.'” The US attack on Iraq destroyed that family and thousands more. It destroyed Cortez. There will be physical and psychic wreckage from that war in most American communities for years to come.

Will any candidate in the months to come have the moral and intellectual fortitude to shun the lock-’em-up grandstanding that has given us the American gulag? Will such a candidate connect crime abroad to crime at home? In Congressional appropriations the war has cost, thus far, $408 billion. In January 2006 Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes reckoned the likely cost to be up to four times that total. Every dollar going to the war has been confiscated from constructive social purposes–economic investment at home, community repair, the creation of jobs, job training, reviving stricken communities.

That’s a populist theme that Senator James Webb seized upon in his response to Bush’s State of the Union. Edwards sounds the same theme from time to time. The moment is ripe for it.

Alexander Cockburn Alexander Cockburn, The Nation's "Beat the Devil" columnist and one of America's best-known radical journalists, was born in Scotland and grew up in Ireland. He graduated from Oxford in 1963 with a degree in English literature and language.
After two years as an editor at the Times Literary Supplement, he worked at the New Left Review and The New Statesman, and co-edited two Penguin volumes, on trade unions and on the student movement.
A permanent resident of the United States since 1973, Cockburn wrote for many years for The Village Voice about the press and politics. Since then he has contributed to many publications including The New York Review of Books, Harper's Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly and the Wall Street Journal (where he had a regular column from 1980 to 1990), as well as alternative publications such as In These Times and the Anderson Valley Advertiser.

He has written "Beat the Devil" since 1984.

He is co-editor, with Jeffrey St Clair, of the newsletter and radical website CounterPunch(http://www.counterpunch.org) which have a substantial world audience. In 1987 he published a best-selling collection of essays, Corruptions of Empire, and two years later co-wrote, with Susanna Hecht, The Fate of the Forest: Developers, Destroyers, and Defenders of the Amazon (both Verso). In 1995 Verso also published his diary of the late 80s, early 90s and the fall of Communism, The Golden Age Is In Us. With Ken Silverstein he wrote Washington Babylon; with Jeffrey St. Clair he has written or coedited several books including: Whiteout, The CIA, Drugs and the Press; The Politics of Anti-Semitism; Imperial Crusades; Al Gore, A User's Manual; Five Days That Shook the World; and A Dime's Worth of Difference, about the two-party system in America.